McCormack 1

Kelly McCormack

Mrs. Jeanette Parker

English 12

7 March 2017

Church and State

Despite common perception, even the youth of America are concerned with

where their government stands on the age old debate of the separation of church and

state. Nadijah Campbell, daughter of parents from two distinctly different religions wrote,

Imagine a world where your every action is watched and governed. You are told what

to wear, what to say, who to believe in and where to go. Despite not believing in the

culture, you have to abide, and if you do not, you could be jailed or even killed,

(Americans United). Like Nadijah, some Americans believe that if we were to declare an

official religion, or even start to favor a religion, that our privilege to wake up everyday

and exercise any religion of our choosing without the consequences of discrimination or

condemnation would vanish. However, another side of America begs to differ. Some are

adamant that a union between church and state would allow all religions in America to

prosper and flourish along with the morality of America as a whole. Buildup regarding

the newly elected president and numerous social movements making a stand proves

that the US is yet again in turmoil about many social issues including whether or not the

separation of church and state represents what a majority of Americans want and what

is best for the well being of all citizens regardless of their viewpoint.
 McCormack 2

1. Introduction

The separation of church and state debate predates even our founding fathers

constitution. Every major concept starts as an idea or problem, and that is exactly what

occurred in England, the mother country of America. From 1620 to 1640, The Great

Migration sent many English citizens sailing to America, a few years subsequent to the

very first pilgrimage, but why? Many have heard what lead up to the American

Revolution from famous slogans like, No taxation without representation, but many do

not understand the match that started the fire: religious inequality. In England, where

one fell in the social hierarchy strongly depended on their religion. Hence, the fact that

the first pilgrims consisted of mainly Anglicans, Baptists, and church separationists-

these groups were discontented with being discriminated against and wanted to found a

nation where every citizen had an equal oppurtunity to prosper. Once the first pilgrims

left England, many became brave enough to follow suit. Among those were the seven

founding fathers who played a key role in the separation of church and state, specifically

Thomas Jefferson.

2. Interpreting Our Founding Fathers

The founding fathers view on separating church and state became the prevalent

view of the eighteenth century, though many dispute if it was their intention to separate

church and state via the clause in the first amendment that states, Congress shall

make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof.... Jefferson is who most debaters focus on when it comes to interpretation,

since in his original, unedited letter to the Danbury Baptist Church he claimed,
 McCormack 3

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people

which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation

between Church and State. (Jefferson)

This passage makes it seem as if Jefferson was in complete favor of separation;

however in March of 2012, U.S. Senator Rick Santorum pointed out the fact that the

Sunday following the day he wrote the letter, Jefferson attended religious services in the

Capitol building, when describing how the first amendment was designed to protect

churches from the government and nothing more (Jefferson; Did the Founding Fathers).

Santorum wasnt the only one in history, recent or far past, to challenge the separation

interpretation. In the late nineteenth century, the people of America took a stand through

media, like political cartoons (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. A woman and military officers blocking a diverse group of religions from

the state building. Artwork by Thomas Nast, titled Church And State-No Union Upon

Any Terms, (Shutterstock; 1870; Web; 14 Feb. 2017).

 McCormack 4

In the late nineteenth century, women were often seen as irrational, and military

force to inhibit the people was seen as a trait of a dictator, so its safe to assume that

this political cartoon advocates for those who want a union between church and state in

order to make the system more moral as well as rational. The illustration also depicts a

diverse group of religions working together to support a church and state union, which is

similar to how many perceive the union today: as an opportunity to have a moral

America full of various, equally treated, religions. At this period in time, according to

Steven Green, a published writer in the Oxford Research Encyclopedias, the joining of

church and state dominated American attitudes.

Whether it be evangelical writers or Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the first

amendment was not meant to advance any other religion other than Christianity. Green

states that the proof of this can be seen in the federal governments punishment of the

Mormon polygamists and support for efforts by missionaries to Christianize Native

Americans, which according to him, highly contrasts the ideal advanced by Thomas

Jefferson and James Madison (Green). Jefferson, in fact was ousted as an infidel during

the time period (see Fig. 2), therefore, it contradicts the idea that Jefferson intended to

promote Christianity by way of government, which was the most popular idea in the late

nineteenth century.
 McCormack 5

Fig. 2. An eagle, the eye of God, has been sent to snatch the Constitution from

Thomas Jefferson, an accused infidel. Artwork by an unknown artist, titled The

Providential Detection, (The Library of Congress; 1800; Web; 15 Feb. 2017).

If the founding fathers sought to separate church and state, like the first amendment

implies, why did they do so? According to an interview with Advanced Placement US

History teacher, Erika Sponsler, having the separation of church and state was the

thing that the founding fathers wanted the most. It wanted people to have the choice to

choose and exercise religion freely, unlike what they escaped from in England.

(Sponsler).

3. Modern Pro-Separation Viewpoint

Today, we are not English citizens looking to escape a discriminatory

government, however, we, free United States citizens, are troubled by issues such as

LGBTQ rights and neophobia. Overall, though, these issues have a commonality: the

separation of church and state. The biggest reasons to have the two remain separate,
 McCormack 6

or even to further secularize the government is the fact that law protecting religious

beliefs can lead to unfair treatment of others, and even the inhibition of freedom to those

who do not participate in the religions being protected. Also, there is the fact that over

the course of history, no religious state has been able to avoid coddling one religion

while condemning or discriminating against others. As Erika Sponsler said in her

interview, the intention of Thomas Jeffersons quote of thus building a wall of separation

between Church and State, was to indeed have it applied to the interpretation of the

Constitution because when you mix the two you don't have a plural society and one

group gains power over another. (Sponsler) Proof of the nation's inability to cope with

religious differences can be seen in the 1960s when former president John F. Kennedy

was first running for president. People worried because Kennedy had the possibility of

becoming the first Catholic president; however, Kennedy assured citizens,

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute

where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political

preference where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly

upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials (Kennedy)

But even Kennedy recognized what kind of attitude he was up against when he

proclaimed, Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday

end, where all men and all churches are treated as equals, where every man has the

same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice (Kennedy). It is thought

that because of this speech, Kennedy won over wary voters because he assured them

that every religion would be free to exercise as long as they were not imposing

themselves onto others. Another example of religious intolerance in America was during
 McCormack 7

the Cold War with the Soviet Union. According to Sponsler, many Americans held the

belief that because the Soviets were the enemy, that the Soviets must also be non-

religious people, so Americas response was to insert the famous one nation, under

God, quote into the pledge of allegiance as well as making In God We Trust

mandatory on currency as some sort of political football. These quotes are commonly

used as proof that the founding fathers intended to start a Christian nation, however, it is

a misconception since the quotes were not added until the twentieth century. Also, both

quotes reference an ambiguous God, but Sponsler offered up the point, what if we

replaced God in these quotes with an alternative? Her belief is that a majority would not

be content with the change or even removal of the phrase (Sponsler). With that being

said, would US citizens be able to be completely tolerant of all religions in the case of

being a religious state, or would neophobic tendencies make it impossible?

Another side of pro-separation is that if the US were to protect religious beliefs,

then it would be inhibiting the freedom of other religious people as well as non-theists,

women and the LGBTQ community. In fact, a drafted executive order by current

president, Donald Trump, may do just that: The order would allow religion to be used

as an excuse to permit discrimination, including by for-profit corporations and taxpayer-

funded organizations, against LGBTQ people, women, non-theists, members of minority

faiths, people who have sex outside of marriage and almost anyone else. (Hayes). This

intolerance to difference is pioneered by a minority of religious people who seem to

imply that in order to maintain their religious beliefs, they have the right to discriminate

against certain people. This could set back almost every social movement and gain in
 McCormack 8

history, which may inevitably cause turmoil over these social movements as well as the

idea of separation of church and state.

4. Modern Against Separation Viewpoint

Those who believe the US was founded as a Christian nation are just as frantic

as the secular crowd is. Some of the biggest reasons posed in support of a union

between church and state is to prevent any religious entities beliefs from being infringed

upon, and to counteract terrorism and criminality by enforcing morality. On December

6th, 2007, Republican candidate Mitt Romney delivered a major address on religion in

relation to public life. Romney, a supporter of the separation of church and state,

admitted that the premise has been taken ...well beyond its original meaning. They

seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. (Romney).

Romney then elaborated on this by including that we are a nation Under God , and that

He should remain on currency, in the pledge, in history education, and in public as the

holiday seasons approach. In Romneys eyes, religious beliefs should be able to be

displayed, or else their rights are being infringed upon by an extremist secular

government. Not only that, but it could discourage citizens from expressing or joining a

religion (Romney).

Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, would have agreed

with Romney, since he weighed in on a case discussing the separation of church and

state and wrapped up his reasoning for the cooperative interaction of church and state

with, Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-

being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality.

(Did the Founding Fathers). Scalia believed that in order to run a moral society, America
 McCormack 9

must favor the beliefs of religion through law, and he even referenced similar but

historical opinions from others including that of the Northwest Territory Ordinance of

1787, 1 Stat. 50, Article III of which provided: 'Religion, morality, and knowledge, being

necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind (Did the Founding

Fathers) Both of these views imply the belief that by fostering morality, a nation can

counteract criminality and terrorism by way of making the nation happy and their beliefs

moral, not criminal and violent.

More recently, current president Donald Trump has taken the approach that by

allowing the government to advocate for religion, the US will be increasing religious

freedom. His line of thought is that by destroying the Johnson Amendment which does

not allow religious organizations to, Participate in, or intervene in (including the

publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of or in

opposition to any candidate for public office that it will then allow our representatives

of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution. (Easley). By speaking freely of

their faith, one may take this as an allowance to pray before a meeting, which is okay if

its kept private and to oneself, but it raises the question, what if the religious person

makes others feel obligated to pray along? This is where its hard to draw a line,

because its virtually impossible to know if those who dont pray along will be

discriminated against in the future or maybe it wont have any impact at all, but some

are not willing to leave that risk open so it brings forth the side of separationists.

Separationists are also worried about the ability for this repeal to allow tax-exempt

organizations to electioneer which in turn could lead to a government that is partial

toward religion and state being unified.

 McCormack 10

5. Possible Solutions

Looking for and fighting for solutions to this issue are what keeps feeding the fire

of separation versus the union of church and state. This is because solutions arrange

themselves on a spectrum from one extreme, to compromise, to another extreme. In

this case, one extreme is to completely secularize the government. This meaning that

church is strictly separate from state, religion is not allowed to deny service to others, is

not allowed on public domain, is not permissible in the court of law or in law making as

an excuse or reason to enact or enforce a law, etcetera. The other extreme is to declare

the US as a religious state by its most popular religion, Christianity. This entails enacting

laws that protect religious beliefs, but if two conflict, Christianity is favored. This also

allows religion in every domain, even public. For example, public schools could require

prayer, but an unknown would be if it required individual prayer, or a universal prayer of

a chosen religion.

The lower popularity of an extremes tend to cause a bell curve distribution of

beliefs. Because of this, most Americans would fall in the middle of the spectrum,

meaning a majority have mixed beliefs full of exceptions. A possible compromise

solution may entail laws stating that no, religious beliefs do not constitute the ability to

discriminate; however, it may also include more liberal allowance of religious exercise-

one that does not worry if people feel uncomfortable or obligated to pray along. Another

compromising solution is one that leaves everything open to be fluid with how the world

changes its view on the matter, and it will give everyone true freedom. This view comes

from the decision of Justice Hugo Lafayette Black in the case of Everson v. Board of

Education:
 McCormack 11

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can

pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over

another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from

church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or

disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large

or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever

they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice

religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,

participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

(Did the Founding Fathers)

In the future, the US may not come to a concrete decision, and it may remain a

debate as the eras change, but there is a chance of finding a way to structure the

government in the way the founding fathers truly intended- to be fluid with the change of

its people. There is the ability to amend the US Constitution for a reason, to change as

society changes, so it is possible to find a way to navigate the issue easier by having

laws that allow true freedom to live religiously, or not, without the worry that a new law

may change all of that. The question is, can we come together to find a cohesive

solution that regardless viewpoint on religion, every one can be content with, but more

importantly, one that everyone can have freedom with.

 McCormack 12

Works Cited

Americans United For Separation of Church And State, Nadijah Campbell, essay

author. Church & State. Au.Org, July 2013,

https://www.au.org/church-state/julyaugust-2013-church-state/viewpoint/excellen

-essay. Accessed 16 Feb. 2017.

(Americans United For Separation of Church And State Campbell)

 McCormack 13

Did the Founding Fathers Support a Separation of Church and State? - Under God in

the Pledge - ProCon.Org. 11 June 2013,

http://undergod.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001358. Accessed 7

Feb. 2017.

(Did the Founding Fathers Support a Separation of Church and State? - Under

God in the Pledge - ProCon.Org)

Easley, Jason. Trump Attacks Separation of Church and State with Vow to Totally

Destroy Johnson Amendment. Politicus USA, 2 Feb. 2017,

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/02/trump-attacks-separation-church-state-

ow-totally-destroy-johnson-amendment.html. Accessed 28 Feb. 2017.

(Easley)

Green, Steven K. Separation of Church and State in the United States - Oxford

Research Encyclopedia of American History. Americanhistory.Oxfordre.com,

Oxford University Press, 27 Mar. 2015,

http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001

0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-29. Accessed 13 Feb. 2017.

(Green)

Hayes, Liz. Congressional Panel Wanted to Ignore Real Threats To Religious

Freedom. Au.Org, 17 Feb. 2017,

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/congressional-panel-wanted-to-igno

e-real-threats-to-religious-freedom. Accessed 28 Feb. 2017.

(Hayes)

Jefferson, Thomas, author of letter. Religion and the Founding of the American
 McCormack 14

Republic. Www.Loc.Gov, 4 June 1998,

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html. Accessed 16 Feb. 2017.

(Jefferson)

Kennedy, John F., speaker. Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial

Association.

American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy -- Address to the Greater Houston

Ministerial Association.

(Kennedy)

Romney, Mitt, speaker. Church-State Separation Has Been Taken Too Far.

Americans

United For Separation of Church And State.

(Romney)

Sponsler, Erika. Personal interview, 2 Mar. 2017.